M/S.I.V.T.V.L.T. (Jv) vs. Chairman Cum Managing Director, Mcl

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s.I.V.T.V.L.T.(J.V.), challenged the technical qualification of Opposite Party No.3 in a bid invited by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 (Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited - MCL) for hiring pay loaders. The Petitioner and Opposite Party No.3 participated in the tender process initiated by NIT No.818/2020/657 dated 28th October, 2020. The Petitioner contended that the work experience certificate submitted by Opposite Party No.3 was not genuine and did not meet the eligibility criteria of Clause-8(A) of the NIT, which required work experience of similar nature valuing 50% of the annualized estimated value, calculated to be Rs.4,18,31,738/-. The Petitioner alleged a mismatch between the work experience certificate (Rs.6,00,72,502/-) and the work order. Opposite Party No.3 did not contest. MCL (Opposite Parties 1 & 2) refuted the Petitioner's claims, stating that clarifications were sought from the employers of Opposite Party No.3, who confirmed the genuineness of the work experience. Subsequently, Opposite Party No.3 was found L-1 and awarded the Letter of Acceptance.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's contentions lacked merit. Regarding the genuineness of the work experience certificate, the Court found that the experience was indeed for loading of raw materials only, and the documents, including clarifications from the employers, did not mention shifting charges. The Petitioner's argument that the work was for 'loading and shifting charges' was found to be factually incorrect, as the documents indicated loading charges at Rs.10/- per MT plus GST. The Court also dismissed the Petitioner's contention regarding the timing of the clarification, noting that a decision was taken by the Tender Committee after ascertaining the genuineness of the certificate. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, the Court emphasized that judicial review in tender matters is limited to preventing arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, and mala fides, and not to assess the 'soundness' of a decision, especially when the process was bona fide and in public interest. The Court found no flaw in the tender process. The Petitioner was L-4 and Opposite Party No.3 was L-1, with a significant price difference.

Key Issues

1. Whether the work experience certificate submitted by Opposite Party No.3 is genuine and meets the eligibility criteria stipulated in Clause-8(A) of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) regarding the nature and value of similar work, and if not, whether its acceptance renders the tender process flawed? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the work experience certificate of Opposite Party No.3, valued at Rs.6,00,72,502/-, did not match the work order and was therefore not genuine. Specifically, the Petitioner contended that the work order from M/s.Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited was for 'loading and shifting charges' while the NIT required only 'loading charges', making the experience invalid. The Petitioner also questioned the timing of a clarification from M/s.Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited, stating it was issued after the price bids were opened. Opposite Parties' Contention (MCL): The Opposite Parties refuted the Petitioner's claims. They stated that clarifications were obtained from M/s.Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited and M/s.Godavari Commodities Limited, both of which confirmed the correctness of Opposite Party No.3's work experience. They asserted that the experience was indeed for loading of raw materials only, without shifting charges, and that the Petitioner's bid was L-4 while Opposite Party No.3 was L-1.